PH
News is the ultimate reality television, yet it now seems to be as scripted and contrived as anything else.
And, though I know that we're all about presentation here...I think news would benefit from being much less slick, much more edgy, and a lot more simple and to the point.
First, visual clutter has come to dominate.
Who cares what the BBC News logo looks like. It should be unobtrusively displayed, the graphics package should not take over the screen (and neither BBC's nor ITV's does). And, most importantly, the graphics and over-the-shoulder/on-screen-behind-the-presenter images should be relevant and minimalist.
Yet, both BBC and ITV have giant screen-walls...and often little to do with them. If we were being honest with ourselves, we would admit that these are not used in an effective manner that often. That's because few stories require extensive charts, images and diagrams for analysis. Peter Snow's election night extravaganza is probably the only example I can think of that would warrant such facilities, and even he has some 3-D stuff that I'm not sure the normal newsrooms have. So, what's the point of all the visual clutter?
Next, pointless shots of the newsroom.
I used to think that panoramic opening shots of the entire studio were visually appealing -- those used by the BBC in the 1999-2003 era worked very well with the titles. But, now I'm starting to question their relevance...since it seems like it's a way to kill time visually while the music finishes playing. Just get to the point, already, will ya? The only purpose fancy camera work really, truly serves is to demonstrate what a wonderful set the news has. But, this is futile...since we all know that regular viewers start to ignore all this after a few weeks because it's all familiar....it's like how someone, sooner or later...stops noticing all the fine details on their front door entrances, just because they go in and out, day-to-day, so frequently. The event becomes so frequent and familiar that we decide it's not worth paying much attention to it.
Instead: Edginess and Reality
I would recommend that newsrooms show more of the edginess and the energy of news collecting and reporting -- and for me an excellent way to do this is to put the news studio in the middle of the real news room...let ppl see others working, moving and even making a bit of noise in the background...make that real.
Also...end the cult of personality that has emerged around newsreaders. Huw Edwards seems fussy; actually, I think he almost seems metrosexual, despite being a middle-aged man. And, Ms. Nightingale and Ms. Kaplinsky are both too d@mn cute. They need less lip gloss and less make up that makes the skin on their faces look like it's about 21 years old...and more gravitas when they are presenting. That's not to say that someone pretty can't read the news (Beatrice Schonberg on France2 is an attractive middle-aged woman, but she's got presence)...but rather that the newsreader must be noticed predominantly for their presence rather than their visual appeal. If you don't understand what I'm saying, try closing your eyes the next time you watch (or, in this case, listen to the news), and decide if you are as impressed.
My point about the women being taken seriously is particularly important. When Peter Jennings died Elizabeth Vargas did not host WNT...Charles Gibson did. This, despite Vargas being the full-time, in-studio presenter of WNT and Gibson being the morning show guy. There's an undercurrent in some newsrooms that believes that women have neither the authority nor the presence to "hold the nation together" during sad times or moments of national crisis. Gladly, CBS seems not to subscribe to this view and I hope Couric's stint is long and successful. But in order to really do the concept of gender equality justice, as far as news presenters go, it's crucial that women and what we used to call "visible minorities" (although I shudder at the term) be selected for solid reporting skills and be given an image of credibility and solid professionalism. A "pretty girl" or "soccer mum" image just won't work...because these people will be taken off air at times that call for serious gravitas. And, since the media has remarkable influence on society's opinions and overall evolution, I think it's irresponsible and very "old-school" to expect newsreaders to be more PR-people than journalists.
And, though I know that we're all about presentation here...I think news would benefit from being much less slick, much more edgy, and a lot more simple and to the point.
First, visual clutter has come to dominate.
Who cares what the BBC News logo looks like. It should be unobtrusively displayed, the graphics package should not take over the screen (and neither BBC's nor ITV's does). And, most importantly, the graphics and over-the-shoulder/on-screen-behind-the-presenter images should be relevant and minimalist.
Yet, both BBC and ITV have giant screen-walls...and often little to do with them. If we were being honest with ourselves, we would admit that these are not used in an effective manner that often. That's because few stories require extensive charts, images and diagrams for analysis. Peter Snow's election night extravaganza is probably the only example I can think of that would warrant such facilities, and even he has some 3-D stuff that I'm not sure the normal newsrooms have. So, what's the point of all the visual clutter?
Next, pointless shots of the newsroom.
I used to think that panoramic opening shots of the entire studio were visually appealing -- those used by the BBC in the 1999-2003 era worked very well with the titles. But, now I'm starting to question their relevance...since it seems like it's a way to kill time visually while the music finishes playing. Just get to the point, already, will ya? The only purpose fancy camera work really, truly serves is to demonstrate what a wonderful set the news has. But, this is futile...since we all know that regular viewers start to ignore all this after a few weeks because it's all familiar....it's like how someone, sooner or later...stops noticing all the fine details on their front door entrances, just because they go in and out, day-to-day, so frequently. The event becomes so frequent and familiar that we decide it's not worth paying much attention to it.
Instead: Edginess and Reality
I would recommend that newsrooms show more of the edginess and the energy of news collecting and reporting -- and for me an excellent way to do this is to put the news studio in the middle of the real news room...let ppl see others working, moving and even making a bit of noise in the background...make that real.
Also...end the cult of personality that has emerged around newsreaders. Huw Edwards seems fussy; actually, I think he almost seems metrosexual, despite being a middle-aged man. And, Ms. Nightingale and Ms. Kaplinsky are both too d@mn cute. They need less lip gloss and less make up that makes the skin on their faces look like it's about 21 years old...and more gravitas when they are presenting. That's not to say that someone pretty can't read the news (Beatrice Schonberg on France2 is an attractive middle-aged woman, but she's got presence)...but rather that the newsreader must be noticed predominantly for their presence rather than their visual appeal. If you don't understand what I'm saying, try closing your eyes the next time you watch (or, in this case, listen to the news), and decide if you are as impressed.
My point about the women being taken seriously is particularly important. When Peter Jennings died Elizabeth Vargas did not host WNT...Charles Gibson did. This, despite Vargas being the full-time, in-studio presenter of WNT and Gibson being the morning show guy. There's an undercurrent in some newsrooms that believes that women have neither the authority nor the presence to "hold the nation together" during sad times or moments of national crisis. Gladly, CBS seems not to subscribe to this view and I hope Couric's stint is long and successful. But in order to really do the concept of gender equality justice, as far as news presenters go, it's crucial that women and what we used to call "visible minorities" (although I shudder at the term) be selected for solid reporting skills and be given an image of credibility and solid professionalism. A "pretty girl" or "soccer mum" image just won't work...because these people will be taken off air at times that call for serious gravitas. And, since the media has remarkable influence on society's opinions and overall evolution, I think it's irresponsible and very "old-school" to expect newsreaders to be more PR-people than journalists.